Adam And Eve - Just An Allegory?

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

 

   

"The reason a non-literal method of interpretation is adopted is, almost without exception, because of a desire to avoid the obvious interpretation of the passage.  The desire to bring the teaching of Scripture into harmony with some predetermined system of doctrine instead of bringing doctrine into harmony with the Scripture has kept the method alive."

 

 

   Pleading an allegorical interpretation of Genesis is done to make the theory of evolution acceptable and workable. 

 

 

That would be correct IF the idea of an allegorical interpretation of Genesis was created in a respone to the idea of evolution that came about in the 19th century from Christians who wanted to accept evolution.

 

However the idea of genesis not being all literal has been around and even shared by christians before evolution came about.  And if there was no theory of evolution existing, an idea of an allegorical interpreation of Genesis would still exist and be believed by some christians.

 

No one is saying that the allegorical approach was created as a response to the idea of evolutoin.   What is being said is that those who believe in evolution and want to make the Bible accomodate  the ToE fall back on the allegorical approach as means of allowing them  to hold on to the ToE and the Bible.   The problem with liberals though, is that they are not theologically equipped to recognize  why that is a problem

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

 

 

When you have an actual argument to present as to why evolution *must* entail the naturalistic metaphysics, let me know. Otherwise you are merely allowing yourself to buy the propaganda of atheists.

 

 

That is nonsense.  If I wanted to understand Catholocism, I would go to a priest. If I want to understand Judaism I would consult Rabbis.   If I want to understand how anything works, I go to the people who understand it best.  

 

One criticism that gets leveled at Christians is that we talk about stuff like this without actually taking the time to search out those who are best able to explain it.  I took that criticism seriously and  went to three university proffessors in my city, all of whom hold  doctorates in their fields of research and in cognate scientific fields as well.

 

So I have a pretty good understanding of the ToE.  I got the same stuff from all three of them and am comfortable that I am able to correctly frame the theory in terms of its core tenets.   You and D-9 are not correctly framing the theory and that is simply not going to get past me.  I am not interested in your cooked up version of Evolution.   You cannot make the actual theory work so you speculate and fantasize that it can somehow work with a biblical worldview that is just futile.

 

 

Okay, so what is their argument that you find so compelling that evolution must entail naturalism as a metaphysic?

 

I didin't ask them about the metaphysic, necessarily.  I asked them to explain the theory itself, and what it entailed.   I did ask them about theistic evolution and all of them balked at it.  To them it is a joke and is not really evolution.  To them it was entirely ridiculous to think that God used evolution.     What I took from them is that the ToE precludes any gods or intelligent enties involved in the process of evolution either as causalities or as "guides."   All three professors made it clear to me that the ToE makes no room whatsoever for any gods.

 

In fact, one of them wondered why a Christian would even want to be an evolutionist.  All three of them made it clear that Genesis cannot be reconciled with the ToE.  I think they are right, even though I disagree with them about evolution itself.  I think they have a firm grasp on the obvious problems that exist with trying to make the Bible accomodate a theory that precludes God.

 

The problem with Theistic Evolutionists is that they have to modify both the ToE and the Bible to reconcile them together.   You cannot take the ToE as it is conventionally understood and make it fit with the Bible as written.   What you have to do in order to make this work is skew what the ToE actually says, while emasculating the text of Scripture into  a non-literal text that doens't have to be accepted as written and deny its authority say what it says.  

IMO you don't believe the Bible.  

Rather you want to believe what you can twist into becoming in order to make it suit your tastes.

Edited June 25, 2013 by shiloh357
<<< Removed Personal Attack. >>>

[ByFaithAlone]

 

 

 

 

 

When you have an actual argument to present as to why evolution *must* entail the naturalistic metaphysics, let me know. Otherwise you are merely allowing yourself to buy the propaganda of atheists.

 

 

That is nonsense.  If I wanted to understand Catholocism, I would go to a priest. If I want to understand Judaism I would consult Rabbis.   If I want to understand how anything works, I go to the people who understand it best.  

 

One criticism that gets leveled at Christians is that we talk about stuff like this without actually taking the time to search out those who are best able to explain it.  I took that criticism seriously and  went to three university proffessors in my city, all of whom hold  doctorates in their fields of research and in cognate scientific fields as well.

 

So I have a pretty good understanding of the ToE.  I got the same stuff from all three of them and am comfortable that I am able to correctly frame the theory in terms of its core tenets.   You and D-9 are not correctly framing the theory and that is simply not going to get past me.  I am not interested in your cooked up version of Evolution.   You cannot make the actual theory work so you speculate and fantasize that it can somehow work with a biblical worldview that is just futile.

 

 

Okay, so what is their argument that you find so compelling that evolution must entail naturalism as a metaphysic?

 

I didin't ask them about the metaphysic, necessarily.  I asked them to explain the theory itself, and what it entailed.   I did ask them about theistic evolution and all of them balked at it.  To them it is a joke and is not really evolution.  To them it was entirely ridiculous to think that God used evolution.     What I took from them is that the ToE precludes any gods or intelligent enties involved in the process of evolution either as causalities or as "guides."   All three professors made it clear to me that the ToE makes no room whatsoever for any gods.

 

In fact, one of them wondered why a Christian would even want to be an evolutionist.  All three of them made it clear that Genesis cannot be reconciled with the ToE.  I think they are right, even though I disagree with them about evolution itself.  I think they have a firm grasp on the obvious problems that exist with trying to make the Bible accomodate a theory that precludes God.

 

The problem with Theistic Evolutionists is that they have to modify both the ToE and the Bible to reconcile them together.   You cannot take the ToE as it is conventionally understood and make it fit with the Bible as written.   What you have to do in order to make this work is skew what the ToE actually says, while emasculating the text of Scripture into  a non-literal text that doens't have to be accepted as written and deny its authority say what it says.  

 

Rather you want to believe what you can twist into becoming in order to make it suit your tastes.

 

 

So basically you are saying that none of them had a philosophical reason for which to hold to the position that evolution is metaphysically naturalistic but their opinions that it is confirmed your opinion that it is so you simply accepted it without philosophical justification. You say that you think they are right but no philosophical proof or argument has been presented. I personally care very little for what you think on the issue but I would like to see some philosophical proof that metaphysical naturalism is implied by evolution. Ironically enough a Christian by the name of Alvin Plantinga already has an evolutionary argument against naturalism so I would like to see how your evolutionary argument for naturalism compares. Thanks. 

[ByFaithAlone]

Cobalt, 

 

I noticed that you have not offered the philosophical proof that connects evolution to metaphysical naturalism. Perhaps you and shiloh could work together on that front to form a cohesive argument. 

 

 

That would be correct IF the idea of an allegorical interpretation of Genesis was created in a respone to the idea of evolution that came about in the 19th century from Christians who wanted to accept evolution.

 

However the idea of genesis not being all literal has been around and even shared by christians before evolution came about.  And if there was no theory of evolution existing, an idea of an allegorical interpreation of Genesis would still exist and be believed by some christians.

 

 

The concept of interpreting wide swaths of scripture allegorically were prototyped by Origen and Augustine.  And they were conjured up to make things like Replacement Theology, the Papacy, the Crusades, the Inquisition, etc. workable and "supported" scripturally.  The RCC uses allegory as the Swiss Knife of proof-texting to enable any false doctrine they like, and it is used as the same type of vehicle for others wishing to enable any false doctrine one could mention.  Got scripture that forbids something, or conflicts with your personal worldview?  No Problem!  Our new Allegorical Interpretation Kit removes even the most stubborn textual problems, and does so instantly, without all those messy hermeneutics of the leading brand.  Call now.  Operators are standing by.  It has been used as that type of vehicle since it got dreamed up.  In this thread, it is being used by people to float the theory that evolution is allowable under allegorical interpretation.  And you, and BFA, and anyone else that wishes to can bring up "other" Christians.  You can bring up supposed scholars.  You can say Justin Beiber believes in an allegorical interpretation of Genesis.  None of that carries any weight at all.  I will say it again, since no one on the allegorical side wants to deal with it, because there is really no way to refute it.  You cannot make a case for interpreting Genesis as allegorical when the Prophets didn't.  When Jesus didn't.  When the Apostles didn't.  When the church didn't begin entertaining the idea that it was allegory at all until the late 3rd/early 4th century.  When you can show me Jesus telling us that Genesis is just allegory, then you have a case.  Until then, not so much.

 

 

And here we just get the facts wrong. Neither Origen nor Augustine started the idea of the allegorical Genesis interpretation. It was championed by Philo, a Jew from Alexandria and contemporary of Christ, Polycarp disciple of John the Apostle and Polycarp's pupil Irenaeus of Lyons. Athenagerous the first recorded dean of the Alexandrian theological school started by Mark was a supporter as well. These were all first or second century members of the early church often taught by the disciples themselves or people who had been taught by the disciples. You can disagree with me but know who and what you are disagreeing with and please get the history straight.  

 

 

 

Firstly, I do quote Scripture. I even have Scripture as my signature, but this is irrelevant to the question I asked.  

 

As to me apparently not being able to understand or interpret it properly, this is a rather bold and arrogant claim. Your purpose is obviously not self evident as I asked what you meant by posting this.... Please explain to this poor theistic evolutionist the point of this Scripture which I apparently cannot understand. Thanks.  

 

 

If you cannot understand why that text is there, and what it means, then you need to find out exactly where your faith is at and what it is placed in.  Because just that section of text there disproves what you are attempting to float, and it is just one of many, many scriptures that do exactly the same thing.  Genesis is not allegory.  Never has been, never will be.  If you need to believe in evolution so badly that you will slice and dice scripture to do it, find some other way to rationalize believing it.  Because slicing and dicing Genesis in that particular manner is not possible.

 

Hebrews 11:1-13 talks about the faith of the Jews in awaiting the Messiah and the importance of that faith throughout history. However, I assume that you wanted to make a deeper point then that so I thought I would let you explain. If you do not wish to explain how this relates to the discussion, it is irrelevant. Quoting Scripture is of no use if interpretation and explanation is not provided. I cannot get inside your head to see why you posted that particular passage and why you think it so utterly destroys my position. I asked politely for you to explain but you continue to refuse. What more can I do?  

[Guest shiloh357]

So basically you are saying that none of them had a philosophical reason for which to hold to the position that evolution is metaphysically naturalistic but their opinions that it is confirmed your opinion that it is so you simply accepted it without philosophical justification.[/qutoe]

No that is not what I am saying.  All I asked them about was what the ToE actually claims.   I didn't know I was going to have deal with your nonsense at the time.   I was simply seeking to be able to correctly frame the ToE so that I would not make false claims about the theory's claims.   All gthree of them were atheists and all three of them categorically rejected any kind of intelligent causality or guide.  I asked them for the conventional claims of the theory and they told me that the ToE  is unguided, unplanned, impersonal and wholly naturalistic.  I did ask them if the ToE precludes God and they all three confirmed that it did preclude God.

 

You and bary are trying really hard to cast the the theory in a different light to justify making it fit the biblicalc creation account and you are all wet.  You have no basis for that as far as the ToE is concerned.  It is just in your imagination that the ToE and the Bible can be reconciled.    I talked to experts who are degreed professors in biology, micro biology and marine biology.  two of them also carried degrees in physics and chemistry as well.  

 

I will take their word over the word of some half-baked 20-something university student who thinks he knows everything.  The fact is BFA, as smart as you think you are, you're a light weight and neitiher you nor bary know what you are talking about.  In fact, you know just enough to be dangerous. 

 

You say that you think they are right but no philosophical proof or argument has been presented.

I don't need to offer any "proof" of anything on a philosophical level.  I didn't ask them about philosophy.

 

I personally care very little for what you think on the issue but I would like to see some philosophical proof that metaphysical naturalism is implied by evolution.

 

It is an impersonal and wholly naturalistic theory.   Being impersonal precludes a personal God being the source or the guide for it.  The theory is designed to preclude God or any other intelligent entity.   That's just the facts.   That you want ot skew the theory only shows that you cannot be trusted in a debate and or that you don't have a firm grasp on the ToE. 

[Gandalf]

Cobalt, I take it that is your statement to peace out of the discussion. Alright.

 

Steven science doesn't *have* to go that way though. It used to be aimed explicitly at studying God's creation and scientists assumed they could do it because God created it to be orderly. That's the sort of approach I have in mind.

Yes, study of the history of science clearly shows that modern science only emerged because of belief in the Christian God and in His ordered creation of the universe. Science assumes that the universe follows rules and principles and is not subject to whims and fancies from a superior being; our God provides that framework of certainty for science to proceed.

Oh and how do you explain the miracles of The Lord? Their purpose was revelatory to the last days and His Church as He fulfills His prophecy of increase of knowledge!

Science does not explain the Lord's miracles - they are miracles!! But they serve to prove that God normally sets the created universe to follow reliable rules and principles; miracles are of course exceptions to the normal running of God's creation - else they would not be "miracles" at all!

[ByFaithAlone]

 

So basically you are saying that none of them had a philosophical reason for which to hold to the position that evolution is metaphysically naturalistic but their opinions that it is confirmed your opinion that it is so you simply accepted it without philosophical justification.[/qutoe]

No that is not what I am saying.  All I asked them about was what the ToE actually claims.   I didn't know I was going to have deal with your nonsense at the time.   I was simply seeking to be able to correctly frame the ToE so that I would not make false claims about the theory's claims.   All gthree of them were atheists and all three of them categorically rejected any kind of intelligent causality or guide.  I asked them for the conventional claims of the theory and they told me that the ToE  is unguided, unplanned, impersonal and wholly naturalistic.  I did ask them if the ToE precludes God and they all three confirmed that it did preclude God.

 

You and bary are trying really hard to cast the the theory in a different light to justify making it fit the biblicalc creation account and you are all wet.  You have no basis for that as far as the ToE is concerned.  It is just in your imagination that the ToE and the Bible can be reconciled.    I talked to experts who are degreed professors in biology, micro biology and marine biology.  two of them also carried degrees in physics and chemistry as well.  

 

I will take their word over the word of some half-baked 20-something university student who thinks he knows everything.  The fact is BFA, as smart as you think you are, you're a light weight and neitiher you nor bary know what you are talking about.  In fact, you know just enough to be dangerous. 

 

You say that you think they are right but no philosophical proof or argument has been presented.

I don't need to offer any "proof" of anything on a philosophical level.  I didn't ask them about philosophy.

 

I personally care very little for what you think on the issue but I would like to see some philosophical proof that metaphysical naturalism is implied by evolution.

 

It is an impersonal and wholly naturalistic theory.   Being impersonal precludes a personal God being the source or the guide for it.  The theory is designed to preclude God or any other intelligent entity.   That's just the facts.   That you want ot skew the theory only shows that you cannot be trusted in a debate and or that you don't have a firm grasp on the ToE. 

 

 

Here is the problem. I am not a biologist with a Ph.D. nor do I claim to be an expert in evolutionary theory. I don't think bary would claim these credentials either. In fact I think we are both proud to be in our respective fields. However, I do recognize something that you have somehow overlooked. This is not an issue of what a few scientists you met think evolution implies. Even if 99.99999% of biological scientists believed that evolution implies that metaphysical naturalism is true, if they lack a philosophical and logical basis for it, they have no justification. The argument must be made, from a philosophical level, that evolution implies metaphyscial naturalism in order for us to say that God and evolution cannot exist in the same universe. This argument has yet to be made.  

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

So basically you are saying that none of them had a philosophical reason for which to hold to the position that evolution is metaphysically naturalistic but their opinions that it is confirmed your opinion that it is so you simply accepted it without philosophical justification.[/qutoe]

No that is not what I am saying.  All I asked them about was what the ToE actually claims.   I didn't know I was going to have deal with your nonsense at the time.   I was simply seeking to be able to correctly frame the ToE so that I would not make false claims about the theory's claims.   All gthree of them were atheists and all three of them categorically rejected any kind of intelligent causality or guide.  I asked them for the conventional claims of the theory and they told me that the ToE  is unguided, unplanned, impersonal and wholly naturalistic.  I did ask them if the ToE precludes God and they all three confirmed that it did preclude God.

 

You and bary are trying really hard to cast the the theory in a different light to justify making it fit the biblicalc creation account and you are all wet.  You have no basis for that as far as the ToE is concerned.  It is just in your imagination that the ToE and the Bible can be reconciled.    I talked to experts who are degreed professors in biology, micro biology and marine biology.  two of them also carried degrees in physics and chemistry as well.  

 

I will take their word over the word of some half-baked 20-something university student who thinks he knows everything.  The fact is BFA, as smart as you think you are, you're a light weight and neitiher you nor bary know what you are talking about.  In fact, you know just enough to be dangerous. 

 

You say that you think they are right but no philosophical proof or argument has been presented.

I don't need to offer any "proof" of anything on a philosophical level.  I didn't ask them about philosophy.

 

I personally care very little for what you think on the issue but I would like to see some philosophical proof that metaphysical naturalism is implied by evolution.

 

It is an impersonal and wholly naturalistic theory.   Being impersonal precludes a personal God being the source or the guide for it.  The theory is designed to preclude God or any other intelligent entity.   That's just the facts.   That you want ot skew the theory only shows that you cannot be trusted in a debate and or that you don't have a firm grasp on the ToE. 

 

 

Here is the problem. I am not a biologist with a Ph.D. nor do I claim to be an expert in evolutionary theory. I don't think bary would claim these credentials either. In fact I think we are both proud to be in our respective fields. However, I do recognize something that you have somehow overlooked. This is not an issue of what a few scientists you met think evolution implies. Even if 99.99999% of biological scientists believed that evolution implies that metaphysical naturalism is true, if they lack a philosophical and logical basis for it, they have no justification. The argument must be made, from a philosophical level, that evolution implies metaphyscial naturalism in order for us to say that God and evolution cannot exist in the same universe. This argument has yet to be made.  

 

the only arguments that need to be made have been made.  Everyone who knows anything about the ToE knows that it precludes God.  Neither I nor anyone else needs to make a philosophical argument.   The majority of evolutionists are atheists, by far.  

 

You don't have the clout or the authority to deny what everyone else knows as true and we are not beholden to your made up standard of needing a philosophical basis.  You don't know what you are talking about and you need to stop before you continue making a laughing stock out of yourself. 

[enoob57]

 

 

 

Cobalt, I take it that is your statement to peace out of the discussion. Alright.

 

Steven science doesn't *have* to go that way though. It used to be aimed explicitly at studying God's creation and scientists assumed they could do it because God created it to be orderly. That's the sort of approach I have in mind.

Yes, study of the history of science clearly shows that modern science only emerged because of belief in the Christian God and in His ordered creation of the universe. Science assumes that the universe follows rules and principles and is not subject to whims and fancies from a superior being; our God provides that framework of certainty for science to proceed.

 

Oh and how do you explain the miracles of The Lord? Their purpose was revelatory to the last days and His Church as He fulfills His prophecy of increase of knowledge!

 

Science does not explain the Lord's miracles - they are miracles!! But they serve to prove that God normally sets the created universe to follow reliable rules and principles; miracles are of course exceptions to the normal running of God's creation - else they would not be "miracles" at all!

 

That is exactly my point sir... before the created element, to begin us in understanding of the endless realities of our Lord, was Spirit and that is the source from which rely to Know God...

God has designated a pathway of entrance into His Presence - His objective source 'written Word' and The unbounded necessity of Spirit Instructed  Leading to His Son Who will either

know us or not! This is solely a individual element of Spiritual reality that we should be aware of if His!

Rom 8:15-17

15 For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, "Abba, Father."

16 The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, 17 and if children, then heirs — heirs of God and joint heirs

with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him, that we may also be glorified together.

NKJV

As the course of thread has suggested that the created element can dictate the Word of God's meaning is like saying that which is bound

by beginning (creation up and to the point of breathing into man) may fully describe  Him which has no beginning or His Breath that made us

living essence of God!  It is impossible encapsulate or bind God by that which has beginning!  Love, Steven

 

[ByFaithAlone]

 

 

 

So basically you are saying that none of them had a philosophical reason for which to hold to the position that evolution is metaphysically naturalistic but their opinions that it is confirmed your opinion that it is so you simply accepted it without philosophical justification.[/qutoe]

No that is not what I am saying.  All I asked them about was what the ToE actually claims.   I didn't know I was going to have deal with your nonsense at the time.   I was simply seeking to be able to correctly frame the ToE so that I would not make false claims about the theory's claims.   All gthree of them were atheists and all three of them categorically rejected any kind of intelligent causality or guide.  I asked them for the conventional claims of the theory and they told me that the ToE  is unguided, unplanned, impersonal and wholly naturalistic.  I did ask them if the ToE precludes God and they all three confirmed that it did preclude God.

 

You and bary are trying really hard to cast the the theory in a different light to justify making it fit the biblicalc creation account and you are all wet.  You have no basis for that as far as the ToE is concerned.  It is just in your imagination that the ToE and the Bible can be reconciled.    I talked to experts who are degreed professors in biology, micro biology and marine biology.  two of them also carried degrees in physics and chemistry as well.  

 

I will take their word over the word of some half-baked 20-something university student who thinks he knows everything.  The fact is BFA, as smart as you think you are, you're a light weight and neitiher you nor bary know what you are talking about.  In fact, you know just enough to be dangerous. 

 

You say that you think they are right but no philosophical proof or argument has been presented.

I don't need to offer any "proof" of anything on a philosophical level.  I didn't ask them about philosophy.

 

I personally care very little for what you think on the issue but I would like to see some philosophical proof that metaphysical naturalism is implied by evolution.

 

It is an impersonal and wholly naturalistic theory.   Being impersonal precludes a personal God being the source or the guide for it.  The theory is designed to preclude God or any other intelligent entity.   That's just the facts.   That you want ot skew the theory only shows that you cannot be trusted in a debate and or that you don't have a firm grasp on the ToE. 

 

 

Here is the problem. I am not a biologist with a Ph.D. nor do I claim to be an expert in evolutionary theory. I don't think bary would claim these credentials either. In fact I think we are both proud to be in our respective fields. However, I do recognize something that you have somehow overlooked. This is not an issue of what a few scientists you met think evolution implies. Even if 99.99999% of biological scientists believed that evolution implies that metaphysical naturalism is true, if they lack a philosophical and logical basis for it, they have no justification. The argument must be made, from a philosophical level, that evolution implies metaphyscial naturalism in order for us to say that God and evolution cannot exist in the same universe. This argument has yet to be made.  

 

the only arguments that need to be made have been made.  Everyone who knows anything about the ToE knows that it precludes God.  Neither I nor anyone else needs to make a philosophical argument.   The majority of evolutionists are atheists, by far.  

 

You don't have the clout or the authority to deny what everyone else knows as true and we are not beholden to your made up standard of needing a philosophical basis.  You don't know what you are talking about and you need to stop before you continue making a laughing stock out of yourself. 

 

 

No, you have not provided the argument requested. 

 

You made the philosophical claim that evolution entails atheism. You should support that claim. This is a simple request based on common decency in a debate. If you don't have the philosophical grounds on which to base your claim, just withdraw it. We won't judge. It is a very difficult (I would even say impossible) claim to make. 

 

Saying that the majority of evolutionists are atheists is irrelevant. As I said: "Even if 99.99999% of biological scientists believed that evolution implies that metaphysical naturalism is true, if they lack a philosophical and logical basis for it, they have no justification."